


GOVERNOR'S MESSAGE 



AND 



DOCUMENTS 



ON THE SUBJECT OF 



2rhe ISofnss of the '3ix\iittx, 



WITH THE 



REPORT 



OF THE COMMITTEE OF THE LEGISLATURE, 



IN RELATION TO THE 



Northeastern Boundary. 



PRINTED BT ORDER OF THE LECISLATURG. 



TODD AND ilOLOEN...,FR INTERS. 
1831 






A 






STATE OF MAINE. 

The joint Select Coniinittee to whoitv so much of the Message 
«f tlie Governor as related to the North Eastern Boundary was 
'Committed, liave Jiad the same under consideration and 

REPOaT. 

Whereas, the boundaries between the State of Maine, 
and the British Provinces of Lower Canada and New 
Brunswick, are definitely described in the provisional 
treaty of peace of 1782, which by its provisions was in- 
corporated into, and became a part of the definitive treaty 
of peace of 1783 — wherein the boundaries are set forth 
and described as follows, to wit : " From the NORTH 
WEST angle of Nova Scotia, to wit, that angle which is 
formed by a line "drawn due north from the source of 
the St. Croix river to the highlands, along the said high- 
lands which divide those rivers that empty themselves into 
the St. Lawrence from those which faU into the Atlantic 
Ocean, to the Northwesternmost head of Connecticut 
river, &c." And again, " East by a line to be diawii 
along the middle of the }-iver St. Croix from its mouth 
in the bay of Fundy to its source and from its source 
directly north to the aforesaid highlands which divide the 
rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those which 
fall into the river St. Lawrence." And whereas — 

The treaty adopted the boundaries of the British 
Provinces respectively, wliich had been formed and accu- 
rately described by the government in a succession of 
acts for nearly twenty years before the aforesaid treaty — 
and have also, since said treaty been often described and 
recognised by other acts of the British government. In 
(he British proclamation of 17G3, the boundary of the 



1« 



Province of Quebec created by that proclamation, and 
the province of Massachusetts bay is thus described — 
" From whence the line crossing the river St. Lawrence 
and lake Champlain in 45 degrees of North Latitude 
passes along the highlands which divide the rivers that 
empty themselves into the said river St. Lawrence from 
those which fall into the sea, and also along the North 
Coast of the Bay des Chaleur and the coast of the gulf 
of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosierres." In the commis- 
sion to the first Governor of the Province of Quebec, the 
boundaries of his government are described in the same 
words ; and such continued to be the description of 
boundary in the successive commissions to the Governors 
of the Province until September 1777. The act of Par- 
liament of the 14th of George 3d, (1774) relating to the 
Province of Quebec, bounds the Province " South by a 
line from the Bay of Chaleur, along the highlands which 
divide the rivers which empty themselves into the river St. 
Lawrence from those which fall into the sea to a point in 
the 45th deg. of north latitude on the eastern branch of 
the river Connecticut." The commissions to the suc- 
ceeding Governors of the Province of Quebec until long 
since the treaty of 1783, if not to the present day, con- 
tain the same description of boundary, with one slight 
difference, to wit, the northwesternmost head of Con- 
necticut river is substituted for " the eastern branch of 
Connecticut river." And whereas also 

The commissions to the successive Governors of the 
Province of Nova Scotia contain an equally e.\act and 
precise description of boundary between that province 
and the province of Massachusetts bay. The commis- 
sions to Governors Wilmot, Campbell, Legge, Hughes, 
Haldimand and Pan, the Governors of Nova Scotia from 
1763 to 1784, when the Province of New Brunswick was 
set off from Nova Scotia, all bound the province west by 
a boundary commencing at '• the mouth of the riifer St. 
Croix, then by the said river to its source aiid by a line 
draivn due north from thence to the southern boundary of 
the Province of C^uebec." To the northward by said 
boundary as far as tlie western extremity of the Bay des 
Chaleurs. Such is also the precise description of boun- 
dary in the first commission to the first Governor of the 
Province of New Brunswick, and it is presumed such 



• M 



boundaries have been continued in the commissions to 
the several Governors to this day, unless tiiey have been 
lately modified to favor a fictitious claim. 

And whereas also 

The British agents and commissioners did always con- 
cede, admit, and declare that the line running north from 
the source of the river St. Croix, crossed the river St. 
John to the highlands between the St. John and the river 
St. Lawrence, the boundary of the Province of Quebec, 
now Lower Canada. The British commissioners at the 
treaty of Ghent offered to purchase the north part of this 
State of the United States, but were refused. The 
British did not set up any claim to the Country until 
1818, when they introduced a vague and uncertain one, 
one which they did not pretend to define, as that would 
have made its fallacy too palpable. 

Therefore Resolved, That the territory bounded by a 
line running by the heads of the streams falling into the 
river S. Lawrence, and between them, and streams falling 
into the river St. John, or through other main channels 
into the sea, until such line intersects a line drawn due 
north from the source of the river St. Croix, is the terri- 
tory of the State of Maine wherein she has constitutional 
right and authority to exercise sovereign power — and the 
Government of the United States have not any power 
given to them by the Constitution of the United States, 
to prohibit the exercise of such right, and it can only be 
prohibited by an assumption of power. 

Whereas — By the force and effect of the treaty of 
1 "83, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts became the 
sovereign, having the right of exercising the sovereign 
power over all the territory which had been under her 
jurisdiction as a colony, after the proclamation, and the 
commissions to the Governors of the Provinces of Quebec 
and Nova Scotia in 1763; she continued to be the sole 
sovereign, until the adoption of the Constitution of the 
United States to which she was a party, and wherein she 
surrendered a partial and qualified sovereignty for the 
general benefit of the whole. The State of Maine by 
the force and effect of the act of separation became 
vested with the rights of sovereignty of Massachusetts. 
One of the inducements to the adoption of the Constitu- 
tion of the United States, was hiutual security and pro- 



tection, of the whole, and every part of the whole. A 
Republican form of Government is expressly guaranteed 
to the people ; and all rights and powers not delegated 
are expressly retained by the States. Among the rights 
and powers not delegated, are the rights and powers in 
the States respectively to retain their entire territories 
and of exercising sovereign power over them ; and tiie 
implication is as strong as implication can be, that each 
State is bound to guarantee to the other, the integrity of 
its territory. There is no power given to Congress by 
the Constitution to dismember a State. Such power 
cannot be exercised without the agreement and consent 
of the State, if it can be done, without the consent and 
agreement of all the States in the manner provided for 
amending or altering the Constitution. 

A power of dismembering States would be dangerous 
to the last degree. If once admitted, it might in its 
consequences break down and absorb all the State sove- 
reignties. Whenever that takes place, the people of 
this happy and flourishing country, will be reduced to 
the condition of the people of other countries ; they will 
have just as much, and no more liberty, than the gov- 
ernment will graciously permit them to enjoy. If the 
government of the United States can cede a portion of 
an independent State to a foreign government, she can, 
by the same principle, cede the whole — and if, to a for- 
eign government, she can by the same principle annex 
one State to another, until the whole are consolidated, 
and she becomes the sole sovereign and law giver, without 
any check to her exercise of power. The exercise of 
such a power ought to be, and always will be resisted by 
a free people, more especially by those and their descend- 
ants, who resisted the arbitrary power of the British, and 
reared upon its ruins our free and happy institutions. 

And whereas also 

The British had clearly and distinctly described the 
boundaries for the period of twenty years before the 
treaty of 1783, also in that treaty, and for many years 
afterwards, if not to the present day, by a succession of 
acts in the several departments of their government: 

Therefore Resolved, That the convention of September 
1827, tended to violate the Constitution of the United 
States and to impair the sovereign rights and powers of 



Ihe State of Maine, and that Maine is not bound by the 
Constitution to submit to the decision, which is or shall 
be made under that convention. 

Whereas, By the convention of September 1827, an 
independent sovereign was to be selected by the govern- 
ments of the United States and Great Britain, to arbitrate 
and settle such disputes as had arisen, and the King of 
the Netherlands was pursuant to that convention selected 
the arbiter, while an independent sovereign, in the pleni- 
tude of his power, exercising dominion and authority 
over more than 6,000,000 of subjects : 

And Whereas, By the force of the prevalence of lib- 
eral opinions in Belgium, the Belgians overthrew his 
power, and deprived him of more than half of his do- 
minions and reduced him to the former dominions of the 
Stadtholder leaving him with the empty title of the 
King of the Netherlands while he is only the King of 
Holland, and thereby increasing his dependence, upon 
Great Britain for holding his power even in Holland, 
which from public appearances, he held by a very doubt- 
ful tenure in the affections of the Dutch. 

Ani* Whereas, The King of the Netherlands had not 
decided before his Kingdom was dismembered and he 
consented to the division, and his public character had 
changed, so that he had ceased to be that public charac- 
ter, and occupying that independent station among the 
Sovereigns of Europe contemplated by the convention of 
September 1827, and which led to his selection. 

Therefore Resolved in the opinion of this Legislature, 
That the decision of the King of the Netherlands, cannot 
and ought not to be considered obligatory upon the gov- 
ernment of the United States, either on the principles of 
right and justice, or of honor. 

Resolved Further— for the reasons before stated, That 
no decision made by any umpire under any circumstances, 
if the decision dismembers a State, has or can have, any 
constitutional force or obligation upon the State thus 
dismembered, unless the State adopt and sanction the 
decision. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

JOHN G. DEANE, per order. 

House of Representatives, 28th Feb. 1831. 



House of Representatives, Feb. 28, 1831. 

The foregoing Preamble and Resolutions were adopted 
with closed doors. Sent up for the concurrence of the 

JOHN RUGGLES, Speaker. 



In Senate, February 28, 1831. 
The foregoing Preambles and Resolutions were adopted 
with closed doors ; in concurrence with the House of 
Representatives. 

ROBERT P. DUNLAP, President. 



To the Senate and House of Representatives ; 

I have received from the Secretary of State of the 
United States, under the direction of the President, a 
copy and translation of the award given by the King of 
the Netherlands in relation to the Northeastern Boun- 
dary of the United States, upon the question submitted 
to him, and also a copy of the Protest which the Minister 
of the United States at the Hague thought it his duty to 
make against the award referred to, together with extracts 
from his despatch to the Department of State, shewing 
the character of the Protest, and the ground upon which 
it was made ; and a copy of the correspondence between 
himself, and Sir Charles Bagot, the Ambassador of Great 
Britain at the same Court, upon the subject. 

Copies of these Documents, and also of the accom- 
panying letter of the Secretary of State of the United 
States, will herewith be laid before you. The President, 
through the Secretary of State, has expressed his desire, 
that while this matter is under deliberation, no steps may 
be taken by the State of Maine, with regard to the dis- 
puted territory, which might be calculated to interrupt 
or embarrass the action of the Executive branch of the 
Government of the United States upon this subject. The 
importance of this suggestion will be duly appreciated 
by the Legislature. And while we adopt such measures 
as shall be judged proper and expedient to make our 
rights and claims known to the government of the United 
States, it will doubtless be considered that we must, 
under the provisions of the Federal Constitution, rely 
with confidence upon that government for the enforce- 
ment of our claims against the power of Great Britain. 

SAMUEL E. SMITH. 

Council Chamber, March 25, 1831. 



In Senate, March 25, 1831. 
Read and with the accompanying documents referred 
to Messrs. Sanford Kingsbery, Theodore Ingalls, Syms 
Gardner, and James Steele, with such as the House may 
join. Sent down for concurrence. 

ROBERT P. DUNLAP, President. 



10 

House of Representatives, March 25, 1831. 
Read and concurred, and Messrs. John G. Deane o( 
Ellsworth, Gorham Parks of Bangor, David C. Magoun 
of Bath, Benjamin J. Herrick of Alfred, Eleazer Coburn 
of Bloomfield, Ebenezer Knowlton of Montville, and John 
C. Talbot of Machias, were joined on the part of the 

House. 

BENJAMIN WHITE, Speaker. 



11 



Department of State of the United States, 
Washington, ISth March, 1831. 

XFo His Excellency Samuel E. Smith, Governor of the 
State pf Maine. 

Sir, — By the President's direction, I have the honor to 
transmit, herewith, to your Excellency, a copy and trans- 
lation of the award given in relation to the Northeastern 
Boundary of the United States, upon the question which 
was submitted to the King of the Netherlands, by this 
Government and that of Great Britain concerning that 
Boundary — which award was officially delivered to the 
Minister of the United States at the Hague, on the tenth 
day of January last, and by him forwarded to this Depart- 
ment, where it was received on the 16th instant. With a 
•view of making your Excellency acquainted with the 
state of this transaction, as received here, I also transmit 
herewith a copy of the Protest which the Minister of the 
•United States at the Hague thought it his duly,' without 
instructions to that effect from the President,' to address 
-to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Government to 
which he is accredited, against the award referred to, — 
together with extracts from his despatch to this Depart- 
ment, showing the character of his Protest, and the ground 
upon which it was made ; and a copy of the correspond- 
ence between himself and Sir Charles Bagot, the Ambas- 
sador of Great Britain at the same Court, upon the subject. 

Mr. Preble has asked leave of absence, for the purpose 
of visiting the United States, which will be forthwith 
granted, and expressed an earnest wish that he may be 
further heard upon the subject, before any measures in 
regard to it are adopted by the President. 

I have the honor, likewise, by direction of the Presi- 
dent, to repeat the assurance which I made to your Ex- 
cellency, in his behalf, in my letter of the 9th instant, 
that the subject of this award will receive all the atten- 
tion and consideration to which its great importance, and 
the interests of the State of Maine, so materially involved 
therein, especially entitle it, in the CounciU of the Exec- 



12 

utive of the United States; and to add that no time will 
be lost in communicating to your Excellency, the result 
of his deliberations upon it, as soon as he shall have de- 
termined upon the course, which a sense of his high and 
responsible duties may suggest as proper on the occasion. 

Under these circumstances, the President will rely with 
confidence upon the candor and liberality of your Excel- 
lency and the other constituted authorities of Maine, in 
appreciating the motives which may influence that course 
on his part, and in a correspondent interpretation of them 
to your constituents, in whose patriotism and discretion 
he has equal confidence. 

In making this communication to your Excellency, I 
am instructed by the President to express his desire that, 
while the matter is under deliberation, no steps may be 
taken by the State of Maine, with regard to the disputed 
territory, which might be calculated to interrupt or em- 
barrass the action of the Executive branch of this Gov- 
ernment upon the subject. 

I have the honor to be, with the highest respect, 
Your Excellency's most ob't servant, 

M. VAN BUREN. 



(B.) 

TRANSLATION. 

William, By the Grace of God, King of the Nether- 
lands, Prince of Orange, Nassau, Grand Duke of Luxem- 
burg, &-C. &,c. &c. 

Having accepted the functions of Arbitrator conferred 
upon us by the note of the Charge' d' Aflaires of the Uni- 
ted States of America, and by that of the Embassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Great Britain, to 
our Minister of Foreign Affairs, under date of the 12th 
January, 1S29, agreeably to the 5th Article of the Treaty 
of Ghent, of the 24th December, 1814, and to the 1st Ar- 
ticle of the Convention concluded between those Powers, 
at London, on the 29th of September, 1827, in the differ- 
ence which has arisen between them on the subject of the 
boundaries of their respective possessions : 

Animated by a sincere desire of answering, by a scru- 
pulous and impartial decision, the confidence they have 



!3 

testified to us, and thus to give them a new proof of the 
high value we attach to it : 

Having, to that effect, duly examined and maturely 
weighed the contents of the first statement, as well as 
those of the definitive statement of the said difference, 
which have been respectively delivered to us on the 1st 
of April of the year 1830, by the Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
America, and the Embassador Extraordinary and Plenipo- 
tentiary of His Britannic Majesty, with all the documents 
thereto annexed in support of them : 

Desirous of fulfilling, at this time, the obligations we 
have contracted in accepting the functions of Arbitrator 
in the aforesaid difference, by laying before the two High 
Interested Parties the result of our examination, and our 
opinion on the three points into which, by common ac- 
cord, the contestation is divided. 

Considering that the three points above mentioned 
ought to be decided according to the treaties, acts and 
conventions concluded between the two Powers ; that is 
to say : the Treaty of Peace of 17S3, the treaty of Friend- 
ship, Commerce and Navigation of 1794, the Declaration 
relative to the river St. Croix of 1798, the Treaty of Peace 
signed at Ghent in 1814, the Convention of the 29th Sep- 
tember, 1S37; and Mitchell's Map, and the Map A. re- 
ferred to in that Convention. 

JVe declare, that, As to the first point, to wit, the ques- 
tion, which is the place designated in the Treaties as the 
North-west angle of Nova Scotia, and what are the high- 
lands dividing the rivers that empty themselves into the 
river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic 
Ocean, along which is to be drawn the line of boundary, 
from that angle to the Northwesternmost head of Con- 
necticut River. 

Considering, That the High Interested Parties respect- 
ively claim that line of boundary at the South, and at the 
North of the river St. John ; and have each indicated, 
upon the Map A. the line which they claim : 

Considering, That according to the instances alleged, 
the term highland applies not only to a hilly or elevated 
country, but also to land which, without being hilly di- 
vides waters flowing in different directions ; and that thus 
the character more or less hilly and elevated of the coun- 



14 

try through which are drawn the two lines respectively 
claimed, at the north, and at the south, of the river St. 
John, cannot form the basis of a choice between them. 

That the text of the 2nd Article of the Treaty of 17S3, 
recites, in part, the words previously used, in the Procla- 
mation of 1763, and in the Quebec act of 1774, to indi- 
cate the Southern boundaries of the Government of Que- 
bec, from Lake Champlain, " in forty five degrees of 
North Latitude, along the highlands which divide the 
rivers that empty themselves into the River St. Lawrence, 
from those which fall into the sea, and also along the 
north coast of the Bay des Chaleur." 

That in 1763, 1765, 1773, and 17S2, it was established 
tliat Nova Scotia should be bounded at the North, as 
far as the western extremity of the Bay des Chaleur, 
by the Southern boundary of the Province of Quebec; 
that this delimitation is again found, with respect to the 
Province of Quebec, in the Commission of the Governor 
General of Quebec of 1776, wherein the language of the 
Proclamation of 1763 and of the Quebec act of 1774 has 
been used, as also in the Commissions of 1786, and others 
of subsequent dates of the Governors of New Brunswick, 
with respect to the last mentioned Province, as well as in 
a great number of maps anterior and posterior, to the 
Treaty of 1773; and that the 1st Article of the said 
Treaty specifies, by name, the States whose independence 
is acknowledged : 

But that this mention does not imply (impliquo) the 
entire coincidence of the boundaries between the two 
Powers, as settled by tlie following Article, with the an- 
cient delimitation of the British Provinces, whose preser- 
vation is not mentioned in the Treaty of 1783, and which 
owing to its continual changes, and the uncertainty which 
continued to exist respecting it, created, from time to 
time, differences between the Provincial authorities : 

That there results from the line drawn under the Trea- 
ty of 1783 through the great Lakes, west of the River St. 
Lawrence, a departure from the ancient provincial char- 
ters, with regard to those boundaries : 

That one would vainly attempt to explain why, if the 
intention was to retain the ancient provincial boundary, 
Mitchell's Map, published in 1755, and consequently an- , 
terior to the Proclamation of 1763, and to the Quebec act 



15 

of 1774, was precisely the one used in the negotiation 
of 1783: 

That Great Britain proposed, at first, the River Piscata- 
qua as the Eastern boundary of the United States ; and 
did not subsequently agree to the proposition to cause 
the boundary of Maine, or Massachusetts Bay, to be as- 
certained at a later period : 

That the Treaty of Ghent stipulated for a new exami- 
nation on the spot, which could not be made applicable 
to an historical or administrative boundary; 

And that, therefore, the ancient delimitation of the 
British Provinces, does not, eitiier, aftbrd tiie basis of a 
decision : 

That the longitude of the Nortii-wcst angle of Nova 
Scotia, which ought to coincide with that of the source 
of the St. Croix river, was determined only by the Dec- 
laration of 1798, which indicated that river: 

That the Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Nav- 
igation of 1794, alludes to the doubt which had arisen 
with respect to the River St. Croi.\, and that the first 
instructions of the Congress, at the time of the nego- 
tiations which resulted in the Treaty of 17S3, locate 
the said angle at the source of the River St. John : 

That the latitude of that angle is upon the banks of 
the St. Lawrence, according to Mitchell's Map, which is 
acknowledged to have regulated the combined and offi- 
cial labors of the negotiators of the Treaty of 17S3; 
whereas, agreeably to the delimitation of the Government 
of Quebec, it is to be looked for at the highlands which 
divide the rivers that empty themselves into the River St. 
Lawrence, fronr those which fall into the sea : 

That the nature of the ground east of the before men- 
tioned angle not having been indicated by the Treaty of 
1783, no argument can be drawn from it to locate that 
angle at one place in preference to another : 

That, at all events, if it were deemed proper to place 
it nearer to the source of the River St. Croix, and look 
for it, at Mars Hill, for instance, it would be so much the 
more possible that the boundary of New Brunswick drawn 
thence northeastwardly would give to that Province sev- 
eral northwest angles, situated farther north and east, 
according to their greater remoteness from Mars Hill, 
that the number of degrees of the angle referred to in the 
Treaty has not been mentioned : 



16 

That, consequently, the north-west angle of Nova Sco- 
tia, here alluded to, having been unknown in 1783, and 
the Treaty of Ghent having again declared it to be unas- 
certained, the mention of that historical angle in the 
Treaty of 1783 is to be considered as a petition of prin- 
ciple (petition de principe) affording no basis for a de- 
cision, whereas, if considered as a topographical point, 
having reference to the definition, viz : " that angle 
which is formed by a line drawn due north from the 
source of the St. Croix, River to the highlands," it forms 
simply the extremity of the line "along the said highlands, 
which divide those rivers that empty themselves into the 
River St. Lawrence, from those which fall into the At- 
lantic Ocean," — an extremity which a reference to the 
northwest angle of Nova Scotia does not contribute to 
ascertain, and which still remaining, itself, to be found, 
cannot lead to the discovery of the line which it is to 
terminate : 

Lastly, that the arguments deduced from the rights of 
Sovereignty exercised over the Fief of Madawaska and 
over the Madawaska settlement — even admitting that 
such exercise were sufficiently proved — cannot decide 
the question, for the reason that those two settlements 
only embrace a portion of the territory in dispute, and 
that the High Interested Parties have acknowledged the 
country lying between the two lines respectively claimed 
by them, as constituting a subject of contestation, and 
that, therefore, possession cannot be considered as dero- 
gating from the right, and that if the ancient delimitation 
of the Provinces be set aside, which is adduced in sup- 
port of the line claimed at the North of the river St. John, 
and especially that which is mentioned in the Proclama- 
tion of 1763, and in the Quebec act of 1774, no argument 
can be admitted in support of the line claimed at the 
South of the river St. John, which would tend to prove 
that such part of the territory in dispute belongs to Can- 
ada or to New Brunswick. 

Considering, That the question divested of the incon- 
clusive arguments drawn from the nature, more or less 
hilly of the ground, — from the ancient delimitation of the 
Provinces, from the Northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and 
from the actual possession, resolves itself, in the end, to 
these : Which is the line drawn due North from the source 



17 

•of llip river St. Croix, and which is tlie ground, no matter 
wlictlicr hilly and elevated, or not, which from that line 
to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river, di- 
vides the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. 
Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean ; 
That the High Interested Parties only agree upon the 
fact that the boundary sought for must be determined by 
such a line, and by such a ground ; that they further 
agree, since the Declaration of 1798, as to the answer to 
be given to the first question, with the exception of the 
latitude at which the line drawn due North from the 
source of the St. Croix river is to terminate ; that said 
latitude coincides with the extremity of the ground which, 
■from that line to the northwesternmost source of Connec- 
ticut river divides the rivers which empty themselves into 
the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the 
Atlantic Ocean : and that, therefore, it only remains to 
ascertain that ground : 

That on entering upon this operation, it is discovered, 
•on the one hand, 

First, that if, by adopting the line claimed at the North 
of the river St. John, Great Britain cannot be considered 
as obtaining a territory of less value than if she had ac- 
cepted, in 1783 the river St. John as her frontier, taking 
into view the situation of the country situated between 
the rivers St. John and St. Croix in the vicinity of the 
sea, and the possession of both banks of the river St. 
John in the lower part of its course, said equivalent 
wonld, nevertheless be destroyed by the interruption of 
the communication between Lower Canada and New 
Brunswick, especially between Quebec and Fredericton ; 
and one would vainly seek to discover what motives could 
have determined the Court of London to consent to such 
an interruption. 

That if, in the second place, in contra-distinction to 
the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Law- 
rence, it had been proper, agreeably to the language 
ordinarily used in geography, to comprehend the rivers 
falling into the Bays of Fundy and des Chaleur with 
those emptying themselves directly into the Atlantic 
Ocean, in the generical denomination of rivers falling into 
the Atlantic Ocean, it would be hazardous to include into 
the species belonging to that class, the rivers St. John and 
3 



IS 

Restigouche, which the line claimed at the north of the 
river St. John divides immediately from rivers emptying 
themselves into the river St. Lawrence, nor with other 
rivers falling into the Atlantic Ocean, but alone ; and 
thus to apply, in interpreting the delimitation established 
by a Treaty, where each word must have a meaning, to 
two exclusively special cases, and where no mention is 
made of the genus (genre), a generical expression which 
would ascribe to them a broader meaning, or which, if 
extended to the Schoodiac Lakes, the Penobscot and the 
Kennebec, which empty themselves directly into the At- 
lantic Ocean, would establish the principle that the Trea- 
ty of 17S3 meant highlands which divide as well mediate- 
ly as immediately, the rivers that empty themselves into 
the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the At- 
lantic Ocean — a principal equally realized by both lines. 

Thirdly: That the line claimed at the north of the riv- 
er St. John does not divide, even immediately the rivers 
that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence from 
the rivers St. John and Restigouche, but only rivers that 
empty themselves into the St. John and Restigouche, 
with the exception of the last part of said line, near the 
sources of the river St. John, and that hence, in order to 
reach the Atlantic Ocean, the rivers divide by that line 
from those that empty themselves into the river St. Law- 
rence, each need two intermediate channels, to wit : the 
ones, the river St. John and the Bay of Fundy, and the 
others, the river Restigouche, and the Bay of Chaleur : 

And on the other hand, that it cannot be sufficiently 
explained how, if the high Contracting Parties intended, 
in 1783, to establish the boundary at the South of the 
river St. John, that river, to which the territory in dispute 
is in a great measure, indebted for its distinctive charac- 
ter, has beefi neutralized and set aside : 

That the verb "divide" appears to require the conti- 
guity of the objects to be "divided :" 

That the said boundary forms at its western extremity, 
only, the immediate separation between the river Metjar- 
mettee, and the northwesternmost head of the Penobscot, 
and divides, mediately, only the rivers that empty them- 
selves into the river St. Lawrence from the waters of the 
Kennebec, Penobscot and Schoodic Lakes ; while the 
boundary claimed at the north of the river St. John di- 



19 

videis, immediately, the waters of the rivers Restigouche 
and St. John, and mediately, the Schoodic lakes, and the 
waters of the rivers Penobscot and Kennebec, from the 
rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, 
to wit : the rivers Beaver, Metis, Rimousky, Trois, Pis- 
toles, Green, Du Loup, Kamouraska, Quelle, Bras St. 
Nicholas, Du Sud, La Famine and Chaudiere. 

That even setting aside the rivers Restigouche and St. 
John, for the reason that they could not be considered as 
falling into the Atlantic Ocean, the northern line would 
still be as near to the Schoodic lakes, and to the waters 
of the Penobscot and of the Kennebec, as the southern 
line would be to the rivers Beaver, Metis, Rimousky and 
others that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence, 
and would, as well as the other, form a mediate separa- 
tion between these and the rivers falling into the Atlantic 
Ocean. 

That the prior intersections of the southern boundary 
by a line drawn due North from the source of the St. 
Croix river, could only secure to it an accessary advan- 
tage over the other, in case both the one and the other 
boundary should combine, in the same degree, the quali- 
ties required by the Treaties : 

And the fate assigned by that of 1783 to the Connec- 
ticut, and even to the St. Lawrence, precludes the sup- 
position that the two Powers could have intended to sur- 
render the whole course of each river, from its source to 
its mouth, to the share of either the one or the other : 

Considering That, after what precedes, the arguments 
adduced on either side, and the documents exhibited in 
support of them, cannot be considered as sufficiently pre- 
ponderating to determine a preference in favor of one of 
the two lines respectively claimed by the High Interested 
Parties, as boundaries of their possessions from the source 
of the river St. Croix to the Northwesternmost head of 
Connecticut River ; and that the nature of the difference 
and the vague and not sufficiently determinate stipula- 
tions of the Treaty of 1783, do not permit to adjudge 
either of those lines to one of the said Parties, without 
wounding the principles of law and equity, with regard 
to the other ; 

Considering That, as has already been said, the ques- 
tion resolves itself into a selection to be made of aground 



dividing the rivers that empty themselves into the rifer 
St. Lawrence, from those that fall into the Atlantic- 
Ocean : that the High Interested Parties are agreed with 
regard to the course of the streams delineated by com- 
mon accord on the Map A. and aflbrding the only basis 
of a decision ; 

And that, therefore, the circumstances upon which 
such decision could not be further elucidated by means 
of fresh topographical investigation, nor by the produc- 
tion of additional documents; 

We are of opinion, That it will be suitable [il convien- 
dra] to adopt as the boundary of the two States a line 
drawn due north from the source of the river St. Croix, 
to the point where it intersects the middle of t!)e thal- 
weg (*) of the river St. John, thence the middle of the 
thalweg of that river, ascending it, to the point where the 
river St. Francis empties itself into the river St. John, 
thence the middle of the thalweg of the river St. Francis, 
ascending it, to the source of its soutliwesternmost branch, 
which source we indicate, on the Map A, by the letter X, 
authenticated by the signature of our Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, thence a line drawn due West, to the point where 
it unites with the line claimed by the United States of 
America and delineated on the Map A, thence said line 
to the point at which according to said Map, it coincides 
with that claimed by Great Britain, and thence the line 
traced on the Map by the two powers, to trie northwest- 
ernmost source of Connecticut river; 

As regards the second point, to wit : the question, 
which is the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river: 

Considering: That, in order to solve this question, it 
is necessary to choose between Connecticut-Lake River, 
Perry's Stream, Indian Stream and Hall's Stream : 

Considering : That, according to the usage adopted in 
Geography, the source and the bed of a river are denoted 
by the name of the river which is attached to such source 
and to such bed, and by their greater relative importance, 
as compared to that of other waters communicating with 
said river : 

Considering: That an official letter of 1772 already 

(*) Thalweg — a German compound word — That, valley, and 
VVeg, way. It means here the deepest channel of the river. 



21 

mentions the name of Hall's Brook : and that in an offi- 
cial letter, of subsequent date in the same year, Hall's 
Brook is represented as a small river falling into the Con- 
necticut : 

That the river in wiiich Connecticut Lake is situated 
appears more considerable than either Hall's, Indian or 
Perry's Stream : that Connecticut Lake and the two Lakes 
situated northward of it, seem to ascribe to it a greater 
volume of water than to die other three rivers: and that 
by admitting it to be the bed of the Connecticut, the 
course of that river is extended farther than it would be 
if a preference were given to either of the other three 
rivers : 

Lastly, that the Map A having been recognized by the 
Convention of 1827, as indicating the courses of streams, 
the authority of that Map would likewise seem to extend 
to their appellation, since in case of dispute, such name 
of river, or lake, respecting which the parties were not 
agreed, may have been omitted ; that said Map mentions 
Connecticut Lake, and that the name of Connecticut 
Lake implies the applicability of the name of Connecticut 
to the river which flows through the said Lake : 

ire are of opinion : That the stream situated farthest 
to the northwest, among those which fall into the north- 
ernmost of the three lakes the last of which bears the 
name of Connecticut Lake must be considered as the 
iiorthwesternmost head of Connecticut river. 

And as to the third point, to wit: the question, which 
is the boundary to be traced from the river Connecticut, 
along the parallel of the 45th degree of North Latitude, 
to the river St. Lawrence, named in the Treaties Iroquois, 
and Cataraguy : 

Considering : That the High Interested Parties differ 
in opinion as to the question — Whether the Treaties re- 
quire a fresh survey of the whole line of boundary from 
the river Connecticut to the river St. Lawrence, named 
in the Treaties Iroquois or Cataraguy, or simply the com- 
pletion of the ancient provincial surveys. 

Considering : That the fifth article of the Treaty of 
Ghent of 1814, does not stipulate that such portion of the 
boundaries which may not have hitherto been surveyed, 
shall be surveyed; but declares that the boundaries have 
not been, and establishes that they shall be, surveyed : 



22 

That, in efl'ect, such survey ought, in the relations be- 
tween the two Powers, to be considered as not having 
been made from the Connecticut to the river St. Law- 
rence, named in the Treaties Iroquois or Cataraguy, since 
the ancient survey was found to be incorrect, and had 
been ordered, not by a common accord of the two pow- 
ers, but by the ancient Provincial authorities : 

That in determining the latitude of places, it is cus- 
tomary to follow the principle of the observed latitude : 

And that the Government of the United States of 
America has erected certain fortifications at the place 
called Rouses' Point, under impression that the ground 
formed part of their territory — an impression sufficiently 
authorized by the circumstance that the line had, until 
then, been reputed to correspond with the 4^th degree 
of North Latitude : 

JVe are of opinion : That it will be suitable [il con- 
viendra] to proceed to fresh operations to measure the 
observed latitude, in order to mark out the boundary 
from the river Connecticut along the parallel of the 45th 
degree of North latitude to the river St. Lawrence, nam- 
ed in the Treaties Iroquois or Cataraguy, in such a man- 
ner, however, that, in all cases, at the place called 
Rouses' Point, the territory of the United States of 
America shall extend to the fort erected at that place, 
and shall include said fort and its Kilometrical radius 
[rayon Kilometrique.] 

Thus done and given under our Royal Seal, at the 
Hague, this tenth day of January, in the year of our 
Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty one, and of 
our Reign, the eighteenth. 

(Signed) WILLIAM. 

The Minister of Foreign Affairs. 

(Signed) Vekstolk de Soelen. 



23 



(C.) 

(copy.) 

The Hague, 12 January, 1831. 

The undersigned. Minister Plenipotentiary and Envoy 
Extraordinary of tiie United States of America, liad the 
honor to receive from the hands of his Majesty, the King 
of the Netherlands, on the tenth inst. a document pur- 
porting to be an expression of his opinion on the sev- 
eral points submitted to him as Arbiter, relative to cer- 
tain portions of the boundary of the United States. In a 
period of much difficulty, his Majesty has had the good- 
ness, for the purpose of conciliating conflicting claims 
and pretensions, to devote to the high parties interested, 
a time that must have been precious to himself and peo- 
ple. It is with extreme regret therefore, that the under- 
signed, in order to prevent all misconception, and to vin- 
dicate the rights of his Government, feels himself com- 
pelled to call the attention of his Excellency, the Baron 
Verstolk Van Soelen, his Majesty's Minister of Foreign 
Affairs, again to the subject. But, while, on the 6ne 
hand, in adverting to certain views and considerations, 
which, seem in some measure, perhaps, to have escaped 
observation, the undersigned will deem it necessary to do 
so with simplicity and frankness; he could not, on the 
other, be wanting in the expressions of a most respectful 
deference for his Majesty, the Arbiter. 

The language of the Treaty, which has given rise to 
the contestation between the United States and Great 
Britain, is, "And that all disputes which might arise in 
future on the subject of the boundaries of the said Uni- 
ted States, may be prevented, it is hereby agreed and 
declared, that the following are and shall be their boun- 
daries, viz : from the north west angle of Nova Sco- 
tia, viz : that angle which is formed by a line drawn due 
north from the source of the St. Croix river to the 
highlands, along the said highlands which divide 
those rivers that empty themselves into the river St. 
Lawrence, from those which fall into the Atlantic 



24 

Ocean, to the nortliwesternmost head ol' Connecticut 
river; thence, down along the middle of that river 
to the forty fifth degree of north latitude ; from thence 
by a line due west on said latitude, until it strikes the 
river Iroquois or Cataraguy *****. East, by a line to be 
drawn along the middle of the river St. Croix, from its 
mouth in the Bay of Fundy, to its source ; and from its 
source directly north, to the aforesaid highlands, which 
divide the rivers that fall into the Atlantic Ocean, from 
those which fall into the river St. Lawrence." The man- 
ner of carrying this apparently exceedingly definite and 
lucid description of boundary into effect, by running the 
line as described, and marking the same on the surface of 
the earth, was the subject, the sole exclusive subject, sub- 
mitted by the convention of Sept. 1827, in pursuance of 
the treaty of Ghent, 1814, to an Arbiter. If on investiga- 
tion, that Arbiter found the language of treaty, in his 
opinion, inapplicable to, and wholly inconsistent with, 
the topography of the country, so that the treaty of 1 783, in 
regard to its description of boundary, could not be exe- 
cuted according to its own express stipulations, no author- 
ity whatever was conferred upon him to determine or 
consider what practicable boundary line should, in such 
case, be substituted and established. Such a question 
©rboundary, as is here supposed, the United States of 
America would, it is believed, submit to the definite de- 
■cisionofno sovereign. And in the case submitted to his 
Majesty, the King of the Netherlands, the United States, 
in forbearing to delegate any such power, were not in- 
fluenced by any want of respect for that distinguished 
monarch. They have on the contrary, given him the 
highest and most signal proofs of their consideration 
and confidence. In the present case especially, as any 
revision or substitution of boundary whatever, had been 
steadily and in a spirit of unalterable determination, re- 
sisted at Ghent and at Washington, they had not antici- 
pated the possibility of there being any occasion for del- 
egating such powers. 

Among the questions to which the language of the 
treaty of 1783, already quoted, gave rise between the high 
parties interested, is the following, viz: where at a 
point due north from the source of the river St. Croix, 
are " the highlands which divide the rivers, that empty 



25 

tliemselves into tlie river St. Lawrence, from those that 
fall into the Atlantic Ocean," at which same point on said 
highlands was also to be found the northwest angle of the 
l»ng established, well known, and distinctly defined Brit- 
ish Province of Nova Scotia. 

On the southern border of the river St. Lawrence, and 
at the average distance from it of less than thirty English 
miles, tiiere is an elevated range or continuation of bro- 
ken highland, extending from Cape Rosieres, southwes- 
terly to the sources of the Connecticut river, forming the 
southern border of the basin of the St. Lawrence and the 
ligne des versants of the rivers emptying into it. The 
same highlands form also the ligne des versants, on the 
north of the river Resligouche, emptying itself into the 
Bay des Chaleur, the river St. John with its northerly 
and westerly branches emptying into the Bay of Fundy, 
the river Penobscot with its northwesterly branches emp- 
tying into the bay of Penobscot, the rivers Kennebec and 
Androscoggin, whose united waters empty into the Bay of 
Sagadahock, and the river Connecticut emptying into the 
Bay usually called Long Island Sound. These Bays are 
all open arms of the sea or Atlantic Ocean ; are designa- 
ted by their names on Mitchell's map; and with the sin- 
gle exception of Sagadahock, are all equally well known, 
and usually designated by their appropriate names. This 
ligne des versants constitutes the highlands of the treaty, 
as claimed by the United States. 

There is another ligne des versants, which Great Bri- 
tain claims as the highlands of the treaty. It is the divid- 
ing ridge, that bounds the southern side of the basin of 
the river St. John, and divides the streams, that flow into 
tlie river St. John, from those which flow into the Penob- 
scot and St. Croix. No river flows from this dividing 
ridge into the river St. Lawrence. On the contrary, 
nearly the whole of the basins of the St. John and Resti- 
gouche intervene. The source of the St. Croix also is in 
this very ligne des versants, and less than an English mile 
distant from the source of a tributary stream of the St. 
John. This proximity reducing the due north line of the 
treaty, as it were, to a point, compelled the provincial 
agents of the British Government to extend the due north 
line over this dividing ridge into the basin of the St. John, 
crossing its tributary streams to the distance of about for- 
4 



26 

ty miles from tlie source of the St. Croix, to the vicinity 
of an isolated hill between the tributary streams of the St. 
John. Connecting that isolated hill with the ligne des 
versants, as just described, by passing between said tri- 
butary streams, they claimed it as constituting the high- 
lands of the treaty. 

These two ranges of highlands as thus described, the 
one contended for by the United States, and the other by 
Great Britain, his Majesty the Arbiter, regards as com- 
porting equally well in all respects, with the language of 
the treaty. It is not the intention of the undersigned 
in this place, to question in the slightest degree the cor- 
rectness of his Majesty's conclusion. But when the 
Arbiter proceeds to say, that it would be suitable to run 
the line due north, from the source of the river St. Croix, 
not "to the highlands which divide the rivers that fall 
into the Atlantic Ocean, from those which fall into the 
river St. Lawrence," but to the centre of the river St. 
John, thence to pass up said river to the mouth of the 
river St. Francis, thence up the river St. Francis to the 
source of its southwesternmost branch, and from thence 
by a line drawn west unto the point where it intersects 
the line of the highlands as claimed by the United 
States, and only from thence to pass " along said high- 
lands, which divide the rivers, that fall into the At- 
lantic Ocean, from those which fall into the river St. 
Lawrence, to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut 
river," — thus abandoning altogether the boundaries of the 
treaty, and substituting for them a distinct and different 
line of demarcation, it becomes the duty of the under- 
signed, with the most perfect respect for the friendly 
views of the Arbiter, to enter a protest against the pro- 
ceeding, as constituting a departure from the power del- 
egated by the high parties interested, in order that the 
rights and interests of the United States may not be sup- 
posed to be committed by any presumed acquiescence 
on the part of their representative near his Majesty the 
King' of the Netherlands. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to re- 
new to the Baron Verstolk Van Soelen, the assurances of 
his high consideration. 

(Signed,) Wm. P. PREBLE. 

Hia Excellency the Baron VersTolk Van Soelen, i 
Ats Majesty's Minister of Foreign Affairs. 



27 



(D.) 

Extracts of a Despatch from Mr. Preble, to the Secretary 

of State, dated Idth January, 1831. 

"With a view to prevent the rights of the United 
States, and the national faith being in the slightest de- 
gree committed by the procedure of the Arbiter, and to 
repel any suggestion of acquiescence, on my part, in be- 
half of the United States, I addressed to His Majesty's 
Minister of Foreign Affairs a protest against the proceed- 
ing, a copy of which I have the honor to enclose, and to 
which I beg leave to refer. I also, on the 15th addressed 
a note to Sir Charles Bagot, the British Ambassador at 
this Court, enclosing to him a copy at the same time of 
the protest which had been previously addressed by me 
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, a copy of which note 
to Sir Charles Bagot I also have the honor to enclose, 
and to which I beg leave to refer." 

" In the course adopted by me, I am fully aware that I 
have assumed some responsibility ; at the same time, I 
am also aware that the Government of the United States 
are not at all committed by any acts of mine, but are left 
perfectly free to pursue their own measures, according to 
what may to them seem most fit and expedient." 

P. S. 17th January. 

" The answer of the British Ambassador to my note of 
the 15th, has just been received, a copy of which I have 
also the honor to enclose, and to which I would refer the 
President." 



28 



(E.) 



Legation of the United States of America. 

The Hague, 15th January, 1831. 

The undersigned, Envoy Extraordinary, and Minister 
Plenipotentiary of the United States of America, near his 
Majesty the King of the Netherlands, having had tlie 
honor simultaneously, with his Excellency Sir Charles 
Bagot, Ambassador Extraordinary, and Plenipotentiary 
of his Majesty the King of Great Britain, to receive on 
the tenth instant from the hands of his Majesty, the King 
of the Netherlands, a document purporting to be the 
advice of his Majesty, as Arbiter, on the several points 
submitted to him by Great Britain and the United States, 
relative to certain portions of the boundaries between 
their respective territories, has on examination of that 
document, perceived with great regret, that the distin- 
guished Arbiter, influenced by a desire to cement the 
good intelligence, which so happily exists between Great 
Britain and the United States, finding himself unable to 
decide between their conflicting claims, has departed 
from the powers delegated to the Arbiter, by the Con- 
vention of 29th September, 1827, and the treaty of Ghent 
of 1814 — The undersigned, therefore, felt it his duty, in 
order that the good faith of his Government, its rights 
and interests might not be supposed to be committed, by 
any presumed acquiescence on his part in the procedure, 
to address to his Excellency the Baron Verstolk Van 
Soelen, his Netherland's Majesty's Minister of Foreign 
affairs, a protest in behalf of the Government of the Uni- 
ted States, a copy of which protest the undersigned has 
the honor to enclose for the information of Sir Charles 
Bagot. Having performed this duty, the undersigned 
considers the whole subject, so far as the United States, 
and the further measures to JDe adopted by them are con- 
cerned, as reverting to the Government of the United 
States at Washington. 

The undersigned avails himself of this occasion to ten- 



29 

der to his Excellency, Sir Charles Bagot, Ambassador 
Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of his Majesty, the 
King of Great Britain, the assurances of his most distin- 
guished consideration. 

(Signed,) Wm. p. PREBLE. 

His Excellency, 

Sir Charles Bagot, Ambassador Extraordinary and 
Plenipotentiary of the S. M. the King of Great Britain. 



30 



(E.) 

COPY. 

The Hague, January 17, 1831. 

The undersigned, His Britannic Majesty's Ambassador 
E.\traordinary and Plenipotentiary, has received the note, 
which his Excellency Mr. Preble, Envoy Extraordinary 
and Minister Plenipotentiary of the United States of 
America, did him the honor to address to him, on the 
25th instant, enclosing to him for his information the 
copy of a note, which his Excellency had thought it his 
duty to address on the 12th instant to His Netherland 
Majesty's Minister of Foreign Affairs, protesting in the 
name of his Government, against the competency of His 
Majesty to pronounce, under the powers delegated to His 
Majesty, as Arbitrator in the question of disputed boun- 
dary between Great Britain and the United States, by the 
Convention of the 29th of September, 1827, and the 
Treaty of Ghent of 1814, a decision in the nature of that 
which His Excellency and the undersigned had the honor 
simultaneously to receive at the hands of his Majesty on 
the 10th of this month. The undersigned much regrets 
that he cannot coincide in the opinion expressed by Mr. 
Preble in this note, as to the limitations by which His 
Excellency supposes His Netherland Majesty to have 
been restricted in the exercise of an arbitration, the main 
declared object of which was to prevent all disputes 
which migiit arise in future on the subject of the Boun- 
daries between Great Britain and the United States, and 
which the two Governments mutually engaged themselves 
to consider as final and conclusive. But as the doubt, 
which Mr. Preble has raised upon this subject, appears 
to the undersigned, and, as it should seem, to Mr. Preble 
also, to be one upon which their respective Governments 
have alone the power to decide, the undersigned will 
confine himself at present to the expression of his thanks 
to Mr. Preble, for the obliging communication of His 
Excellency's note to the Baron de Verstolk, and to the re- 
quest that his Excellency will accept the assurances of 
his most distinguished consideration. ^ 

(Signed,) CHARLES BAGOT. 

His Excellency, W. P. Prkblk, Esq. &c. &c. <fcc. 



The Joint Select Committee of the Legislature, con- 
sisting of four on the part of the Senate, apd seven on 
the part of the House, to whom was referred the Gov- 
ernor's special Message of the 25th March, 1831, with 
accompanying documents, consisting of a copy of the 
award made by the King of the Netherlands in relation 
to the Northeastern Boundary of the United States, upon 
the question submitted to him by the Government of the 
United States and Great Britain ; also a copy of the 
Protest which the Minister of the United States at the 
Hague thought it his duty to make against the award of 
the King ; also extracts from the despatch of the Minister, 
shewing the character of the protest, and the ground 
upon which it was made ; and also the correspondence 
between the Minister of the United States, and Sir 
Charles Bagot, the Ambassador of Great Britain, at the 
Court of the King aforesaid, upon the same subject; have 
examined and considered the same Message and Docu- 
ments, and 

REPORT : 

The Legislature of this State, having on former occa- 
sions, discussed the question of title and jurisdiction of 
this State to the territory to which they consider the 
British Government had made an unjust claim, a claim, 
contrary to a fair and impartial interpretation of their 
own acts and admissions, and also the right of the Gov- 
ernment of the United States, under the Constitution, to 



32 

interfere with the rights of territory and of sovereignty 
of an independent State, so far, as to either, directly or 
indirectly, cede or transfer any portion thereof to any 
State, either domestic, or foreign ; the Committee do not 
deem it important, on this occasion, to discuss these sub- 
jects further, and content themselves by simply referring 
to the documents which have proceeded heretofore, from 
the Legislative and Executive Departments of the State 
Government. 

The documents to which your committee would re- 
spectfully solicit the attention of the Government of the 
United States, are the Message of Enoch Lincoln. Esq. 
Governor of the State of Maine, delivered before both 
branches of the Legislature in January, 1827 ; the subse- 
quent report of the committee, on so much of the Gov- 
ernor's Message as related to the Northeastern Boundary ; 
the subsequent correspondence of the Governor with the 
Secretary of State of the United States; the Governor's 
Message delivered before both branches of the Legisla- 
ture, in January, 1828; the report of the committee on 
so much of the Governor's Message as related to the 
Northeastern Boundary ; the subsequent acts and doings 
of the Legislature, more especially ; the measures adopt- 
ed by this Legislature, a copy of which has already been 
forwarded to the President of the United States. The 
aforesaid documents, your committee consider contain 
the main facts in support of the title of the State, to soil 
and sovereignty, as well as some of the grounds of her 
rights under the Constitution of the United States. An 
examination of those documents, for any present purpose, 
will sufficiently indicate, not only the views heretofore 
entertained by the State, but the course which she will 
feel it her duty to pursue in furtherance of her rights. 

Here it may be proper to remark, that the State au- 
thorities, have not any disposition to embarras."! the Gov- 



33 

ernment of the United States, in any of their negotia- 
tions with Foreign Nations, when they pursue the authori- 
ty given them by the Constitution, and it ought also to 
be understood, that the Legislature of the State, while 
exercising their powers under the Constitution of the 
State, and as Guardians of the rights and interests of 
the people, cannot and ought not to compromit the rights 
of the State by any direct act of their own, or by any 
acquiescence in the exercise of powers by any other 
State or sovereignty, contrary to the will of the people 
as expressed and delegated in their compacts and con- 
stitutions. There are rights which a free people cannot 
yield, and there are encroachments upon such rights, 
which ought to be resisted and prevented, or the people 
have no assurance for the continuance of their liberties. 

We make these remarks without intending any dis- 
paragement to the Government of the United States, and 
also with the entire confidence and conviction, that on a 
just and careful revisal of the measures that have so far 
taken place, that there will be found to exist no substan- 
tial impediment to giving final effect to the perfect con- 
stitutional obligations, to protect and preserve the orig- 
inal and independent rights of the people of this State. 

The most important document referred to your Com- 
mittee, is the one which emanated from the King of the 
Netherlands, the Arbiter, selected by Great Britain and 
the United States, by virtue of the Convention of Sept. 
29, 1827 — to decide upon the points of difference which 
had arisen between the Governments under the fifth arti- 
cle of the treaty of Ghent. The Legislature have on a 
former occasion, briefly expressed their views on the sub- 
ject of the Convention of 1 827 — that it did not necessari- 
ly and directly violate, but that prospectively, it might 
produce a violation of their constitutional rights ; and 
it may properly be added, that the question raised by the 
5 



34 

British, and which was recognized by that Convention, 
did not grow out of a legitimate interpretation of the 
Treaty of Ghent, but was artfully introduced by the Brit- 
ish Agents, and was incautiously admitted, or not suffi- 
ciently opposed and resisted, by the Agents of the United 
States. This State has never admitted the authority of 
the Convention, and cannot consider her rights comprom- 
ited by any decision under it. 

The King, or sovereign power of the Netherlands de- 
rived its authority of Arbiter, from the Convention of 
September 29, 1827. His authority to decide the ques- 
tions submitted is indicated in the first article, which is 
as follows : " It is agreed that the points of difference 
which have arisen in the settlement of the boundary be- 
tween the American and British dominions, as described 
in the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent, shall be referred 
to some friendly sovereign or State, who shall be invited 
to investigate, and make a decision upon such points of 
dift'erence." 

The first question which naturally arises in 
this case, is ; did the Arbiter to ivhom the points 
of difference between the Governments loas sub- 
mitted, decide them, or advise the manner of set- 
tling them ? 

From the language used, it seems to have been the in- 
tention both of Great Britain and the United States, to 
submit the decision of the difference which had arisen, 
not to an individual, but to the Sovereign Power of an 
Independent State or Kingdom, hence the propriety of 
the language they used to express their intention, " some 
friendly sovereign or State." To fulfil the intention of 
the parties, it was not only necessary that the Sovereign 
Power selected should have been, at the time of its selec- 
tion, in the full and undisturbed enjoyment of its power. 



35 

and equally dependent upon, and independent of, th^ 
parties, but that the power should have thus continued to 
the time of its delivering its opinions upon the questions 
submitted. At the time of the selection of the King of 
the Netherlands, or the sovereign to arbitrate and settle 
the differences, he, and his Government were exercising, 
and were in the full and uncontrolled possession of the 
Sovereign power of Holland and Belgium, formerly the 
United Provinces and the Netherlands. Subsequent 
events, and events, which occurred many months before 
the subject had been considered, and any sort of decision 
was made and delivered to the parties, separated Belgi- 
um from his dominions and from the sovereign power of 
his Government. Losing Belgium, deprived the King of 
nearly three fifths of his subjects, and of course of three 
fifths of his power and consequence, and he ceased to be 
the King of the Netherlands. 

The loss of Belgium arose from the prevalence of lib- 
eral opinions and the desire of the People to secure their 
rights. The revolution, from the course the British pur- 
sued, naturally produced feelings of attachment to, and 
dependence upon them, for aid and protection, and as 
naturally excited feelings against the institutions of the 
United States. But we go still further: the course of 
events did not simply increase his dependence upon the 
British, but compelled him to call upon them for assist- 
ance to enable him to sustain his power as King, even, in 
Holland. The British were, long before the decision, 
his privy counsellors, if not the managers and regulators 
of his public concerns and negotiations, upon which the 
existence and continuance of his power depended. He 
was within their power and control. Having then lost 
the character possessed at the time of the selection, the 
King or Sovereign power of the Netherlands ceased to 
be the Arbiter to whom the differences had been sub- 



36 

niitted. A decision after such a change of character 
and interest cannot, for any purpose, be considered as 
liaving any obligatory force or effect ; it can be consid- 
ered only a mere nullity. 

The next question ivhich ari'<cs is, Has the 
Arbiter decided the points of difference tvhich 
had arisen between the tivo Governments 1 

The Arbiter, in stating the authority or rules of deci- 
sion, says, "the points submitted ought to be decided 
according to the Treaties, Acts, and Conventions con- 
cluded between the two powers ; that is to say, the 
Treaty of Peace of 1783, the Treaty of Friendship, 
Commerce and Navigation of 1794, the declaration in, 
relation to the river St. Croix in 1798, the Treaty of 
Peace, signed at Ghent in 1814, and Mitchell's map and 
the map A. referred to in the Convention." 

The first point the Arbiter was called upon to decide, 
was, " which is the place designated in the Treaties as 
the northwest angle of Nova Scotia, and what are the 
highlands dividing the rivers emptying themselves into 
the river St. Lawrence from those which fall into the 
Atlantic ocean, along which is to be drawn the line of 
boundary from that angle to the northwesternmost head 
of Connecticut river ?" The United States claimed a 
range of highlands which limit the streams falling into 
the river St. Lawrence, and separate them from streams 
flowing from the same range in all other directions, and 
through all other channels, falling ultimately into the 
Atlantic ocean. The British claimed a range of land, 
which, in part of its course, separated the waters of the 
St. John from the waters of the Penobscot, and in anoth- 
er part of its course separated only the waters of one 
tributary of the St. John from another tributary of the 



37 

same river. These ranges of laud were indicated on the 
map A. according to the claims set up by the parties re- 
spectively. The northwest angle of Nova Scotia, accord- 
ing to the claims of both parties, was at the point where 
a line due north from the source of the river St. Croix 
intersected the range of highlands, with only this dif- 
ference, according to the claims of the United States, it 
would intersect the range, and according to the clainasof 
Great Britain, it would touch the eastern extremity of the 
line, and only intersect it if continued northwesterly. 

To avoid any misrepresentation of the meaning of the 
Arbiter, we will quote from the document. He says, 
"the arguments adduced on either side, and the docu- 
ments exhibited in support of them, cannot be considered 
as sufficiently preponderating to determine any prefer- 
ence in favor of one of the lines respectively claimed by 
the high interested parties as boundaries of their posses- 
sion, from the source of the river St. Croix to the north- 
westernmost head of Connecticut river, and that the 
nature of the difference, and the vague and not sufficient- 
ly determinate stipulations of the Treaty of 17S3, do not 
permit to adjudge either of these lines to one of the said 
parties, without wounding the principles of law and 
equity with regard to the other." 

And again, "the question results itself into a selection 
to be made of a ground dividing the rivers that empty 
themselves into the river St. Lawrence from those that 
fall into the Atlantic Ocean ; that the high interested 
parties are agreed with regard to the courses of the stream 
delineated by common accord on the map A. and afford- 
ing the only basis of a decision ; and that therefore the 
circumstances upon which such a decision could not be 
farther elucidated by fresh topographical investigation, 
nor by the productions of additional documents." Then 
follows 



38 



" We are of opinion, That it will be suitable to adopt 
as the boundary of the two States, a line drawn due north 
from the source of the river St. Croix to the point where 
It intersects the middle of the deepest channel of the 
river St. John, thence the middle of the deepest channel 
of that river ascending," &c. This is the language of 
recommendation or advice to the parties of a course to 
be adopted by them, rather than a decision of the point 
submitted ; whether the meaning is to be ascertained 
from the language used, or from the preceding argu- 
ments, the conclusion is the same, the Arbiter did not 
pretend to decide, and declared he could not decide the 
pomt m controversy between the parties, but only intend- 

t d° "fT "^r^'' ^y ''^'''^' '" ^'^ °P--". it might 
b deeded. The Arbiter seems to have been imprested 
with the limitation of his powers, and that he had no au- 

ence is " whinh T , '^'^''"^ P"'"^ of difier- 

ticut ivert'on^ : T^^^^^^^^^^ '^-d of Connec- 

otherparv.an'lrnrrl::/^^"^^'^"^ 
evidence anH , examination of the 

^ _■ » ^"^ ^^"^^ languaire and fr.rr„ „f 



age and form of 



expression, savs " we J. f -"guage and torm of 

uaied farthest to thl no l""" '"* '" '"'^'^ «''- 

seems to be, from the arguments ivhl,.i, j 

•gumenis vvliich precede, and the 



39 

J angiiage employed by the Arbiter, the only point deei- 

I led, of the three submitted. 

The Government of the United States cannot feel 
hemselves bound to adopt or be governed by the advice 
)f the Arbiter, particularly when his advice was not 
.ought or asked by them, and was given at a time when 
lis situation gave him peculiar inducements for favoring 
jfreat Britain. 

If it were to he considered, that the Arbiter 
had made a decision loith an intention of decid- 
ing the first point of difference between the par- 
ties, the question arises, Has the Arbiter decided 
in pursuance of the authority given him ? 

The authority under which he acted has been before 
stated, and here it will be only necessary to repeat, if he 
has not decided the points of difference which had arisen 
in the settlement of the boundary between the American 
land British dominions, as described in the fifth article of 
the treaty of Ghent, according to the Treaties and Con- 
ventions appertaining to the same subject, the Govern- 
ment of the United States will have no hesitation in 
rejecting the decision. If the Arbiter has not performed 
his duties in good faith, or has violated or transcended 
the powers given him ; it does appear to your committee 
impossible that the Government of the United States 
will consider their faith pledged so far as to consider 
themselves bound by the decision. 

It is proper to examine the subject of dispute. The 
Arbiter in stating the claims made by the parties in rela- 
tion to the first point in dispute, says, "the high interest- 
ed parties respectively claim that line of boundary at 
the south and at the north of the river St. John, and have 
each indicated upon the Map A. the line which they 



40 

claim." The line indicated on tiie Map by Great Brit- 
ain south of the St. John, extended from the source of 
that river, and between it and its tributaries, and the Pe- 
nobscot river and its tributaries in a part of its course, 
and in the residue of its course between tributaries of the 
St. John to Mars hill. The line indicated by the United 
States on the north of the St. John, extended along the 
ridge of land which limits the sources of the streams 
which fall into the river St. Lawrence to the point upon 
that ridge, which terminates a due north line from tlic 
source of the river St. Croix. It is very manifest the Ar- 
biter fully understood the respective claims and differen- 
ces of the parties. 

Great Britain and the United States equally contended 
that the boundary was on the land, a boundary of high- 
lands, which divided waters ; they could not have con- 
tended for any other, because the treaty of 1783 describes 
no other than one on the "highlands which divide the 
rivers that empty themselves into the river St. Lawrence 
from those which fall into the Atlantic ocean," nor did 
the Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec act of 1774, the 
Commissions to the Governors of the Province of Que- 
bec, or the Commissions to the Governors of Nova Scotia 
or New Brunswick describe any other boundary than a 
boundary on the land, and as it was described in the 
Treaty. 

From an examination of the Treaty and documents 
above named, one fact appears clear and manifest — They 
all divide the streams and rivers into two, and but two 
classes for any purpose connected with the boundaries, 
to wit ; the river St. Lawrence, and all the rivers and 
streams emptying into it from the highlands, which limit 
their sources, are placed in one class, and in opposition 
to all other streams or rivers, flowing from the same high- 
lands in other directions and through all other channels 



41 

-into the Sea or Atlantic Ocean ; which constitute the 
other class. Commencing with the proclamation of 1763, 
the British became particular and gave exact and well 
described boundaries to their Provinces, so much so, that 
it is now difficult to perceive how any general descriptions 
could be more clear. 

The treaty of 1783, adopted the boundaries of the 
Provinces as they had been at various times clearly and 
distinctly described by the British. 

The question submitted to the Arbiter was not a ques- 
tion of law or equity, it was barely a question of fact, 
and he only had authority to decide the fact under the 
Treaties and the claims which had been set up under 
them by Great Britain and the United States. His 
authority was limited to deciding whether the lineclaim- 
ed by Great Britain on the south, or the line claimed by 
the United States on the north of the St. John, was the 
line intended and described in the treaty of Peace of 
1783. The authority of drawing or recommending a 
new line, however much it was for his interest to do it, 
or for the interest of the British that it should be done, 
was not conferred by the Convention. 

The Arbiter not having pursued the authority conferred 
on him by the "high interested parties" in his decision, 
but having drawn a new line, not on the land, bui in the 
beds of riv/3rs in a considerable part of its course, in 
direct violation of the terms of the Treaties and Conven- 
tion and the claims of the respective parties, from which 
all his authority was derived, it necessarily follows that 
his decision is null and void, and ought not to be regard- 
ed by the United States as having any force or effect. 

If the Arbiter had decided in favor of the line claimed 
by the British on the south of the St. John, there might 
have been a slight appearance of plausibility in the de- 
cision, inasmuch as the boundary would have been on 
6 



42 

the land, and according to the claim made by one of ths 
parties. But the Arbiter despatciied the British claim 
very briefly, and, to use his language, "at all events, if it 
were deemed proper to place it (the northwest angle of 
Nova Scotia) nearer to the source of the river St. Croix 
and look for it at Mars hill, for instance, it would be so 
much more possible that the boundary of New Bruns- 
wick drawn thence northeastwardly would give to that 
Province several northwest angles, situated further north 
and east according to their greater remoteness from Mars 
hill." The British probably did not wish the Arbiter to 
decide in favor of their claim, because if he gave them 
so much, they no doubt believed the flagrant injustice of 
the act, would arouse such a state of feeling in the Uni- 
ted States as would prevent their holding any part, and 
that they should not be able to secure to themselves a 
direct communication between Fredericton and Quebec. 

The Arbiter seems not to have despatched the claim 
and argument of the United States with equal facility. 
He felt the difliculty of reconciling the decision, which 
circumstances compelled him to make, to the evidence } 
and wished, no doubt, to satisfy the United States by 
giving them Rouse's point in exchange for two or three 
millions of acres of land in Maine. 

The Arbiter supposes, that, because the line was drawn 
through the Western Lakes, without a strict regard to 
the ancient lines of Provinces, and because Mitchell's map 
was used by the negotiators of the treaty of 1783, upon 
which the lines of the Provinces were not previously 
drawn, and because Great Britain at first claimed the 
Piscataqua river as the eastern boundary of the United 
States, and because "the Treaty of Ghent stipulated for a 
new examination on the spot, which would not be appli- 
cable to an historical or administrative boundary, that 
the ancient delimitation of the Provinces does not afford 



43 

ihe basis of a decision." If he had intended to have 
come fairly and impartially to a conclusion, it is a little 
difficult to conceive the reason of his having made only 
a partial selection of the facts, or of his assuming the 
existence of difficulties which would not have been 
found in practice. 

It does by no means follow that if the negotiators did 
not intend to adopt the ancient lines of Provinces where 
the lakes formed a boundary, or if the British wished in 
the early stage of the negotiation to limit the United 
States to the Piscataqua river, that it was not finally 
agreed to adopt the ancient lines between the Provinces 
as the boundary of the United States in that part of it 
which came within the cognizance of the Arbiter. 

From the history of the negotiation of the treaty of 
1783, it appears that the line was drawn through the 
middle of the lakes as the most certain and convenient 
boundary in that quarter. That the British did indeed, 
in the first instance, propose the Piscataqua river as the 
eastern boundary of the United States, in the second in- 
stance the Kennebec, and in the third instance the Pe- 
nobscot. The Americans proposed the river St. John as 
the boundary. Neither proposition was adopted, but if 
either had been, a new boundary differing from the an- 
cient boundaries of Provinces, would have been estab- 
lished. The negotiators agreed to adopt, and did adopt, 
after all their discussions, the ancient boundaries of the 
Provinces as they had long before been established by 
the British Government between Nova Scotia and Cana- 
da on the one hand, and Massachusetts, New Hampshire, 
Vermont and New York to the river St. Lawrence, on 
the other. The fact appears from the declarations of a 
majority of the negotiators, and the language used, which 
is nearly a transcript of the description of the bounda- 
ries of the Provinces, as established by the British. Of 



44' 



these points the Arbiter was not ignorant, for the es-i- 
dence of them had appeared in the discussion of the 
subject of boundary, and no doubt was in his possession. 
That the facts derived from documents in relation to the 
boundary may appear as they exist, we have deemed it 
proper to collate them as follows : — 
Boundaries in the treaty of i7d3. Boundaries in the Proclamation 



"From the northwest angle of No- 
va Scotia, to wit : that angle which 
is formed by a line drawn due north 
from the source of the St. Croii river 
to the highlands, along the high- 
landt which divide the rivers that 
empty themselves into the river St. 
Laic rence from those vvhich fall in- 
to the Atlantic Ocean to the north- 
westernmost head of Connecticut riv- 
er, thence down along the middle of 
that river to the forty-fifth degree of 
North Latitude, from thence by a line 
due west in said latitude, until it 
strikes the river Iroquois or Catera- 
guy. 



of Oct. 7, 1763. 
" The said line crossing the St. 
Lawrence, and Lake Champlain in 
forty-five degrees of North Latitude 
passes along the highlands which 
divide the rivers that empty them-' 
selves into the said St. Lawrence 
from those which fall into the Sea, 
and also along the coast of the Bay 
des Chaleur and the coast of the 
gulf of St. Lawrence to Cape Rosie- 
res." The same boundary is found 
in the Commissions to Governors 
Murray and Carlelon, which are da- 
ted, one November 21, 1763, the 
other, AprU 21, 1767. 

Boundaries in the Qiielec .let, 
1774. 

"South by a line from the Bay of 
Chaleur along the highlands ithich 
divide the rivers that empty them- 
selves into the river St. Lawrence, 
from those which fall into the Sea, 
to a point in the forty-fifth degree of 
North Latitude on the eastern branch 
of the river Connecticut, keeping the 
same latitude directly west through 
lake Champlain until in the same lat- 
itude it meets the St. Lawrence." 

The same boundary is also found in 
the Commission to Gov. Ilaldimand, 
dated September 18, 1777. In the 
Commission to Governor Carlelon, 
dated April 22, 1786, is found the 
following : 

"Bounded on the south by a line 
from the Bay of Chaleur along the 
highlands which divide the rivers 
which empty themselves into the 
river St. Lawrence, from those 
which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, 
to the northw ester nynost head of 
Connecticut river, thence dotvn 



45 



"Kas'. by a line to be drawn along 
the middle of the river St. Croix, 
from its mouth in the Bay of Fu/ir- 
dif to its source^ and from its source 
directly north to the aforesaid high- 
lands, which divide those rivers that 
fall into the Atlantic Ocean from those 
which fall into the river St. Law- 
Sfiice. " 



along the middle of that river to 
the forty-fifth degree of A''orth 
Latitude, from thence by a line due 
tvcst on said latitude until it strikes 
the river Iroquois or Cataraguy." 

In the Commission to Governor 
Wilmot, Governor of Nova Scotia, 
dated November 21, 1763, is foand 
the following boundary : 

"Westward by a line drawn from 
Cape Sable across the entrance of the 
Bay of Fundy, to the mouth of the 
river St. Croix by said river to its 
source and by a line drawn due 
north, from thence to the southern 
boundary of our Province of Que- 
bec to the northward by the same 
boundary as fat as the western ex- 
tremity of the Bay desChaleur." 

The same boundary is also found 
in the Commissions to the Governors 
of Nova Scotia in 1765, 1773, and 
in the Commissions to Governor 
Parr, dated July 29, 1782, who was 
the Governor at the time of the 
Treaty in 1783. 

In the Commission to Governor 
Carleton, the first Governor of New 
Brunswick, dated August 16, 1784, 
is found the folUowing boundary: 

"Bounded on the westward by the 
month of the river St. Croix by the 
said river to its source, and by a 
line drawn due north, from thenec 
to the southern boundary of our 
Province of Quebec to the north- 
ward by the said boundary as far 
as the western extremity of the 
Bay of Chaleur." 

It is not a little difficult to conceive, how so plain 
language and e.vplicit description of boundary could, by 
any sound and honest mind, be so, totally misconstrued, 
and should have been considered as not affording any 
basis of a decision in relation to the points submitted. 
If tlie facts in relation to Mitchell's map are considered, 
the conclusion of the Arbiter is not warranted. That 
was a map of North America, published while the British 
and French were contending for empire in North Ameri- 
ca, from the means furnished by the office of the board 



46 

of trade and plantations in England, and while also the 
question, which had arisen under the Treaty of Utrecht, 
by which the French ceded Nova Scotia or Acadie to the 
British, as to the limits of Nova Scotia, was unsettled. 
It was not, therefore, the policy of the British Govern- 
ment to designate the boundaries of the Provinces on 
her maps, which the compiler very well understood, and 
therefore the boundaries were not drawn. It is not true, 
as supposed by the Arbiter, that Mitchell's map regulated 
the boundaries, but the negotiators regulated the boun- 
daries by pencil marks upon the map, according to their 
agreement of adopting the boundaries of the Province, 
as they were, and had been established before the Revo- 
lution. 

Another of the reasons urged as not affording a basis 
of a decision is, "that the treaty of Ghent stipulated for 
a new examination on the spot, which could not be made 
applicable to an historical or administrative boundary." 
This like the other instances, is begging tjie question. 
Facts are bettfer than hypothesis. The fifth article of 
the Treaty of Ghent provides : " Whereas neither the 
point of the highlands lying due north from the source of 
the river St. Croix and designated in the former Treaty 
of Peace between the two powers as the northwest angle 
of Nova Scotia, nor the northwesternmost head of Con- 
necticut river, has yet been ascertained ; and whereas 
that part of the boundary line between the two powers 
which extends from the source of the river St. Croix di- 
rectly north to the abovementioned northwest angle of 
Nova Scotia, thence along the said highlands which di- 
vide the rivers that empty themselves into the river St. 
Lawrence from those which fall into the Atlantic Ocean, 
to the northwesternmost head of Connecticut river, thence 
down along the middle of that river to the forty-fifth de- 
gree of north latitude, thence by a line due "'nst on said 



47 

latitude, until it- strikes the river Iroquois or Cateraguy, 
has not yet been surveyed." If the statement of the Ar- 
biter has any meaning, it appears to us to mean, that 
inasmuch as the monument had not been erected at the 
angle, the stipulation of the parties in the treaty afforded 
him no means of deciding where the angle should be. 
This avoids the very object of the treaty, which was to 
have the lines surveyed, and the angle marked. If the 
lines had been surveyed and marked, the parties would 
have had no occasion for his services. If the plain ob- 
jects, clearly set forth in the article, could not furnish to 
the mind of the Arbiter, any basis for a decision, we can- 
not conceive what could. He has in this, as in other 
instances, shewn more of ingenuity than of soundness of 
judgment. No surveyor who had a competent knowledge 
of his business, would with such rules as the treaties fur- 
nish, find any difficulty in ascertaining the lines and the 
angles. The Arbiter says, "the first instructions of Con- 
gress, at the time of the negotiations which resulted in 
the Treaty of 1783, locate the said angle at the source 
of the river St. John." We are aware that this may be a 
British argument, but we are not aware that the instruc- 
tions said any thing about, or had any allusion to the 
northwest angle of Nova Scotia. The design of the in- 
structions was to form a new boundary not conforming to 
the ancient line of the Provinces, but as another and dif- 
ferent line was adopted by the Treaty, the instructions 
have nothing to do with the Boundaries. If the St. John 
had been adopted as the boundary, an inspection of the 
map shews that Nova Scotia would not have bad a north- 
west, but a southwest angle, if it had retained the terri- 
tory to the head of the river, on the left bank of it. We 
are aware the British had made as much as they could of 
the fact, which had ceased to have any bearing on the 
question of boundary, after the adoption of the treaty of 



48 \ 

1783. But yet this argument has been adopted by the 
Arbiter. 

He, again in a subsequent part of his argument, recurs 
to the instructions and says, " that if by adopting the line 
claimed at the north of the river St. John, Great Britain 
cannot be considered as obtaining a territory of less value, 
than if she had accepted in 1T83 the river St. John as her 
frontier, taking into view the situation of the country 
situated between the river St. John and St. Croix in the 
vicinity of the sea, and the possession of both banks of 
the river St. John in the lower part of its course, said 
equivalent would nevertheless be destroyed by the inter- 
ruption of the communication between Lower Canada 
and JVew Brunswick, especially between Quebec and 
Fredericton; and one ivould vainly seek to discover 
what motives could have determined the Court of London 
to consent to such an interpretation." 

We "are aware it has been admitted by the British 
within a few years past, that the country was included 
within the limits of the treaty, but they have said, they 
never intended to give it up. The reason of their giving 
it up by the stipulations in the treaty of 1783 is a plain 
one — they had struggled, but in vain, to hold the people 
of the United States in subjection to their power, and had 
been compelled to acknowledge their independence, and 
had failed in limiting the United States to the Piscataqua, 
or Kennebec, or Penobscot rivers, and to settle the dis- 
pute agreed to adopt the ancient boundaries of the Prov- 
inces. This being a part of the territory which belonged 
to one of the States whose independence she acknowl- 
€dged, she could not in justice withhold from the State 
any part of it. 

The Arbiter has seen fit to introduce a class of geo- 
graphical and grammatical arguments. These, like other 
arguments, are not original with him, but are of British 



49 

iuanufacture. A full and sufficient answer, to all his 
immediate and mediate divisions of waters, and his sup- 
position that the verb "divide" requires the contiguity of 
the objects to be divided, as used in the treaty, is, the 
Treaties, the Proclamation of 1763, the Quebec Act of 
1774, and all the Commissions to the Governors, divide 
all the waters connected with the boundary into two and 
only two classes, to wit : those which flow into the river 
St. Lawrence, on the one hand, and those which through 
all other channels, by whatever name they may be called, 
ultimately fall into the sea or Atlantic Ocean, on the 
other. 

It cannot be pretended that the Proclamation of 1763, 
the Quebec Act of 1774, and the Commissions to the 
Governors of the Province of Quebec, gave to that Prov- 
ince any other or greater territory, from the Bay of Cha- 
leur to the head of Connecticut river, than the terriiory 
limited by the range of highlands which limit the waters 
that flow into the river St. Lawrence. Nor can it be 
pretended that the Commissions to the Governors of 
Nova Scotia and New Brunswick gave them any territory' 
west of the meridian drawn north from the source of the 
river St. Croix to the boundary of the Province of Que- 
bec, the highlands which limit the tributary streams of 
the river St. Lawrence. 

The leading object of the Arbiter, in all his argu- 
ments, appears to have "been, to avoid deciding in favor 
of either line, because if he decided in favor of either, 
he could find no excuse for deciding against the line 
claimed by the United Slates, which he could expect 
would have even the appearance of plausibility to the 
world, and thus the chance of securing Great Britain a 
passage between "Lower Canada and New Brunswick, 
7 



50 

especially between Quebec and Fredericton," would bt 
forever lost. 

It is with much satisfaction the committee have seen 
the prompt and able manner in which the Minister of 
the United States at the Hague, has met the subject in 
his Protest addressed to the King's Minister of Foreign 
Aftairs ; to which Protest, for the further elucidation of 
their views, they respectfully ask the attention of the 
Legislature. 

In conclusion, your committee deem it to be their duty 
to the Legislature and to the State, to declare that in 
their opinion, in whatever light the document which 
emanated from the Arbiter may be considered, whether 
as emanating from an individual, and not from that 
friendly Sovereign, Power, or State, to whom the points 
in dispute were submitted by the parties, because he had 
long before the decision ceased to be such Sovereign ; 
or whether it be considered as advice on two of the 
points submitted and a decision on the other ; or whether 
it be considered a decision on all the three points sub- 
mitted, inasmuch as the decision is not warranted by his 
situation and the authority which was given him, nor a 
decision of the questions submitted to him by the par- 
ties, the United States will not consider themselves 
bound, on any principle whatever, to adopt it. And 
further, should the United States adopt the document as 
a decision, it will be in violation of the constitutional 
rights of the State of Maine, which she cannot yield. 

All which is respectfully submitted. 

JOHN G. DEANE, 

Per order of the Committee. 

House of Representatives, ) 
March 30, 1831. J 



51 



House of Representatives, March 31, 1831. 
Read and accepted. Sent up for concurrence. 

BENJAMIN WHITE, Speaker. 



STATE OF MAINE. 

In Senate, March 31, 1831. 
Read and accepted, in concurrence. 

ROBERT P. DUNLAP, President. 



-^ 



^ 

^ 



52 



STATE OF MAINE. 




RESOLVE in relation to the Report on the Governor's Message, 
of March twenty-fifth, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-one. 

Resolved, That the Governor, with the advice of Coun- 
cil, be, and is hereby requested to transmit a copy of the 
*Report of the Select Committee of the Legislature, on the 
Governor's Message, of the twenty-fifth of March, one 
thousand eight hundred and thirty-one, communicating 
the advice and opinion of the late King of the Nether- 
lands, who at one period was the Arbiter, to whom was 
submitted " the points of difference which had arisen in 
the settlement of the boundary between the American 
and British dominions, as described in the fifth article of 
the treaty of Ghent," with other documents, with the do- 
ings of the Legislature thereon, to the President of the 
United States, in such way and manner as may be con- 
sidered to be most for the interest of the State. 

Resolved, That the Governor be, and hereby is re- 
quested to transmit a copy of the Report of the Select 
Committee of the Legislature on the Governor's Mes- 
sage, delivered on the twenty-fifth day of March, in the 
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty- 
one, communicating the advice and opinion of the late 
King of the Netherlands, who at one period was the 
Arbiter to whom was submitted "the points of difference 
which had arisen in the settlement of the boundary be- 
tween the American and British dominions, as described 
in the fifth article of the treaty of Ghent," with the other 
documents and the doings of the Legislature thereon, to 
the several Governors of the several States composing 
the United States. 

In the House of Representatives, March Ql, 1831. 
Read and passed. BENJ. WHITE, Speaker. 

In Senate, March 31, 1831. 
Read and passed. 

ROBERT P. DUNLAP, President. 

April 1, 1831— Approved : 

SAMUEL E. SMITH. 






^ 

# 



